Collecting Photographic Art

Buceph

Ever since I did a printing course, I've become quite enamoured with an actual print of a photo. I grew in the mostly digital era and never really formed an attachment to prints. They were simply a necessity for holiday snaps. The course made me realise how much work goes into the physical process of printing them, and made me realise how much better it is to see something as a print as opposed to an image on a screen.

I also have the collectors bug at the moment. Reminiscing about collecting football stickers, Garbage Pail Kid stickers, and Magic: The Gathering cards makes me think I'd like to get into collecting again. Collecting photographs would be (almost) perfect. They're easy to manage, small and portable and photos are something I love looking at anyway, so what I see as a simple rarity aspect of other forms of collecting is negated.

The problem is, photos are really expensive. A lot of people who sell their photos know that some people will pay relatively high prices (I'm taking €50 here, not even big amounts.) In the immediate sense, there's the hassle of printing, posting, running a website, and all that jazz. Then these pro or semi-pro photos put the value of their time spent taking the pictures and the equipment necessary into the equation as well. And all of that quickly mounts up to make collecting photos too expensive for me.

Has anyone found a way around this? Or is it just a case of collecting my shekels together and saving for the odd once-off purchase. The thing running through the back of my mind is that I'm not even looking for "big name" togs. I look through the Random Photo Thread most weeks, spending an hour just going through whats been posted, and there are plenty of pictures I'd pay printing, postage and a little extra for. Is that worth it for people? Would photographers here and on other sites be interested in that? I don't mean to denigrate anyone's photos there, I'm absolutely certain that a lot of people are already selling their shots for substantial sums of money outside of boards. And that posting on boards is a purely community thing. Are there good photographers who never thought of making money and would indulge someone like me who would collect according to his means and in line with a simple love for photography?

melekalikimaka

have you looked at the price for high quality printing? I think maybe you will get some people offering their photos for free... but the good ones are usually photos you will have to pay for, you will likely end up with a collection of faded rubbish in 5 years if you go the cheap route

stcstc

less than 5 years

sineadw

Well you can ask?

I collect photos. Most of them are 6x4s, and I've never paid more than a few quid for them. I get a lot of postcard type images at galleries - in the giftshop - usually a euro or so, sometimes free, and a lot free at gallery openings and shows. I've asked one or two people here for permission to print a small shot that I really loved. I also scour flea markets and such for old photographs. I have some from POWs from WW1, some images of children taken by studio portraitists that are even older. Some of them are my own photos, and some are reproductions of paintings. I've also bought a fair few from Neil at his gallery in Georges Street Arcade, and the guys in the Picture Rooms on Wellington Quay - both of whom do lovely 6x4s in mounts for a few quid each. Some of my prints are on the chimney breast wall in my bedroom and others are in albums. I love looking at them I think photos should be printed..

If you want to go the 6x4 or smaller route you'll be surprised how many you can pick up for nothing or next to nothing. If you want large images you can frame, expect to pay.

Buceph

melekalikimaka wrote: »

have you looked at the price for high quality printing? I think maybe you will get some people offering their photos for free... but the good ones are usually photos you will have to pay for, you will likely end up with a collection of faded rubbish in 5 years if you go the cheap route

I have. The least I've seen has been around €50. That is prohibitively expensive to me. However, they were only commercial photographers (or at least they appear to be to me.) They have websites that seem to highlight their artistic nature, or professionally high quality. As I said, I would not think of bothering them. What I was wondering was whether there are amatuers, people who would never have entertained the idea of printing and showing their work and would they be willing to "sell" their work for cost price? Maybe I have this forum all wrong, maybe it is full of professionals looking to make a buck out of their photos, and fair play to them, I imagine it is very tough. However photography has always attracted the extremely proficient amatuer. Without getting into debates of what makes a professional and what separates an amatuer from such, I would simply recognise that an amatuer is capable of producing an image that should be acclaimed as much as any professional. I see evidence of that every week (at least if my idea of the photographers in the Random Photo Thread is correct.) And I read a very famous blog post claiming that "professionals" are inferior to amatuers because professionals do it for a base desire, i.e. money, while amatuers do it for love of the craft and art. Maybe those people would like to send their images around the world. Not claiming to be as "professional" as those looking to make a living from it, rather looking to have their print seen, experienced and loved.

I'm simply debating your idea of "good ones." I'm not trying to turn a profit on these images or "invest" in an hopefully "appreciative" piece (well, in my dreams I am.) I'd just like to have photos in my hand and look at them, and have a connection to the photographer who created them rather than going through a publisher, an editor, a layout dude, a printer, a warehouser and then a salesman. You say I have to pay to get the "good ones," I don't see why? There are a lot of people who are happy to have their image appreciated and their effort lauded over monetary gain. Surely that's a partisan investment on both sides of the transaction (at least for the beginning, my ideal route would be that photography print collecting would boom and a grass routes effort would spring up rather than a collector/dealer system.)

I've never printed an image from a computer, but here's what I'm guesstimating it would take to get a Fibre Print to an acceptable quality to exchange. So lets say we exclude the photographing process, because people will do that anyway. I wouldn't like to ask any professional photographer to sell below what they feel their worth is. It's unfair to ask them to do so, they are trying to make a living from their work. So we'll only deal in amatuers who would like their prints viewed and what expense they have to go to outside of their normal personal routine and to see a print made and posted.

Paper: €1 a 10*8 sheet 7 or so sheets for a decent print. €7 total.
Paper dev: €12.95 a litre, 10 baths a litre. €1.30 total.
Stop: €10 per 500ml, 10 baths per 500ml. €1 total.
Fixer: €10.91 a litre, 10 baths a litre. €1.09 total.
I know very little about Fibre printing, I think this kit should work.
Toner, etc.: €18.40, per 5 baths. €4 total.
Postage and packaging: €3
Incidentals: €1

Even €18.79 is a lot cheaper for a fibre print than the €50 I've seen charged elsewhere. However, that's presuming people would like to share their photos without entering the professional realm (which I have no intent upon encroaching.) It's a bit outside what I would pay, but that would be for a fairly decent print. And I didn't average the print costs out over multiple, batch prints, which I would hope the chemicals would achieve.

stcstc wrote: »

less than 5 years

I have chemist printed photos from the 70s that are still quite acceptable, and I've seen transparencies from the 50's that are absolutely beautiful. Absolutely, yes, there are much better ways to print than with the basic materials, but I think they can last a great deal longer than five years with minor decay. Also, I would hope that by the time the prints were too poor to enjoy, I'd be a lotto winner and the artist would be selling photos in New York, London, Tokyo and Dubai and we could reach a much more ostentatious understanding at that point.




I suppose the best way to ensure the integrity of both the photographer and viewer is to limit this type of thing to a print exchange. I'm just wary for myself as I don't think my photos are good enough to give to anyone, but I'd still love to get my hands on some photographers' pictures that I'm not sure they feel self-satisfied enough about. And I would like to think that even if I simply trade for cost price, that it will help them to further themselves in a "professional" setting or even simply to let them know that they don't have to be a big time professional to have others view not only their jpegs, but their prints (which was my original point, prints are far nicer than jpegs.)

Edit:

sineadw wrote: »

Well you can ask?

I collect photos. Most of them are 6x4s, and I've never paid more than a few quid for them. I get a lot of postcard type images at galleries - in the giftshop - usually a euro or so, sometimes free, and a lot free at gallery openings and shows. I've asked one or two people here for permission to print a small shot that I really loved. I also scour flea markets and such for old photographs. I have some from POWs from WW1, some images of children taken by studio portraitists that are even older. Some of them are my own photos, and some are reproductions of paintings. I've also bought a fair few from Neil at his gallery in Georges Street Arcade, and the guys in the Picture Rooms on Wellington Quay - both of whom do lovely 6x4s in mounts for a few quid each. Some of my prints are on the chimney breast wall in my bedroom and others are in albums. I love looking at them I think photos should be printed..

If you want to go the 6x4 or smaller route you'll be surprised how many you can pick up for nothing or next to nothing. If you want large images you can frame, expect to pay.

That's really amazing Sinead. What you're up to sounds so cool. I love looking at the contact prints of the (two) rolls I've printed and 6*4s of good photos would be even better (obiously they'd be better than mine )

I'm not in Dublin and I don't know of places like this in Cork (if anyone does know them point them out to me please ) Part of my original "collecting" point was that I'd also like an emotional attachment to the collector, and part of this was I think I'd really like to collect boards.ie photographers stuff, because this is such an amazing community of phenomenal artists. I'm just not sure how many of them realise that.

I'll link you to the post I made in the Collectibles and Antiques forum, to give you an idea of where I'm coming from.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056495554

sineadw

Fibre printing is a different story altogether to inkjet printing, and I think only a handful here do it tbh. I've only done it once (have to sort that out - another part of my new years resolution) and even resin based printers are few and far between here. The vast majority of people on here would be running inkjet if anything. You can buy or produce a decent sized fine quality inkjet for €20 or less though

I think a print exchange would be your best bet. They've been done here before. Also, have you got a copy of the boards photo books? They're wonderful, and all 4 years are available to buy AFAIK.

stcstc

comparing the cost of prints is a non starter

Do you think any masterpiece is only worth the cost of materials

why would someone give you their images, which is basically what your asking for

ie selling price = cost price

there has to be a fair price for someones arts, if you value it at the cost of the print then you dont value it

its the same as valuing your own time, would you work for free?

Buceph

stcstc wrote: »

comparing the cost of prints is a non starter

Do you think any masterpiece is only worth the cost of materials

why would someone give you their images, which is basically what your asking for

ie selling price = cost price

there has to be a fair price for someones arts, if you value it at the cost of the print then you dont value it

its the same as valuing your own time, would you work for free?

I thought I had explained this twice, so maybe I'm being unclear. When I take a photo I'm not "snapping" a picture to be sold. I'm taking a picture because I see something I like, or something I find intriguing, or because I like the play of colour of shapes, or shapes and light, or colour and light or a mixture of all three. I hold no pretense of what my "art" is, I try to take a photograph of something I find appealing.

Now, maybe it's because I'm not very good at photography, but I wouldn't sell my photos. Of course I'd like to make money from it, I'd like to be free to travel the world and explore the streets snapping all that falls before me in an interesting way. That's not going to happen. However, if someone who appreciated photography or art or even the craft of printing asked me for a photo of mine, chances are I would go out of my way to produce a print for them. Purely because I'd feel appreciated and I'd get a feeling of joy knowing that an art lover is poring over my picture.

Maybe it does come down to financial terms. Maybe true worth is evaluated in cold, hard cash. We might as well get rid of "thanks" then, because if you're not willing to buy it then what does you're appreciation mean.

Maybe it's a different evaluation of the worth of printing. I have enjoyed the printing I have done. If someone wanted a print of mine I'd appreciate them asking for it, and give it to them. However my printing has a cold, hard cash expenditure associated with it. Something that leaves me out of pocket.

It comes down to this:

stcstc wrote: »

its the same as valuing your own time, would you work for free?

I'm not working when I take or print photos. You seem to be saying that taking photos leaves you out of pocket. Either you're a professional, or you're definitely not getting your enjoyment:money ratio sorted.

sineadw wrote: »

Also, have you got a copy of the boards photo books? They're wonderful, and all 4 years are available to buy AFAIK.

I've been given a few photography books for Christmas, I'm going to work my way through those (they're mainly technique based, but I still love looking at the pictures.) I didn't realise all four of the boards books were available. Maybe that's something I could start collecting.

stcstc

maybe i didnt make it clear either


i am not looking at just cash,

when i said would you work for free, i am not talking about talking photos

i am talking about your job

i never once said by taking pictures you would be out of pocket


BUT

to devalue someones art to the cost of materials of the print is just wrong

are we to value the mona lisa based on the materials???


the materials are actually the minor part of the costs involved in taking pictures and producing prints

in the same way of making a sculpture or paininting with oil

Buceph

stcstc wrote: »

when i said would you work for free, i am not talking about talking photos

i am talking about your job

I made it clear that I wouldn't ask professional photographers for cost price versions of their work.

i never once said by taking pictures you would be out of pocket

Ok. What do we reimburse/buy based on then? Market values? I think a lot of amatuer photographers don't sell their work because of the market. I was saying that the physical costs could be reimbursed financially, i.e. paying for printing costs, so no-one would be out of pocket: presuming the person was going to take the photo with their own money in the first place, anything else would be on a professional basis, and like I said, I'm not talking about getting their work for cost price. Then the rest of the trade: the artists inspiration, skill, patience, etc. could be traded for the "buyers" appreciation of their work.

BUT

to devalue someones art to the cost of materials of the print is just wrong

You're basing your entire valuation on financial terms. I'm saying that there might be people who would like their work to be shared and put up on a place in a house (just like people post their images in the random photos thread for free.)

are we to value the mona lisa based on the materials???

If there were 6 billion Mona Lisas it would be worth nothing. The value of the Mona Lisa has very little to do with artistic concerns anymore. And such is a huge debate in the art world at the moment.

the materials are actually the minor part of the costs involved in taking pictures and producing prints

in the same way of making a sculpture or paininting with oil

What are the other costs? If you mean cost in pure financial terms, then I wouldn't be willing to underpay someone who proposed on financing their shoot with a final sale (not that they'd be willing to sell to me.) But isn't there a difference with people who don't plan on selling pictures? People who take pictures becuase they like the act and craft, and who like seeing other people enjoy them. Why does everything have to come down to reimbursement when reimbursement isn't a concern for the vast majority of photographers out there? Instead it's a love of the art?



Edit: Look. I fully understand that there are people who want to make a living from this. I don't want to intrude into there space. But the simple (subjective) fact is that there are ametuer taken photographs in this forum that I would rank just as high as some of the stuff hanging on any gallery wall in Ireland. And these are taken by people who have no interest in making a sale, it's too much hassle, it's too much of an obligation, or it's too much risk. I think that there are amatuers who absolutely deserve to have their image hanging on walls all over Ireland. However they don't have nor do they want the business behind it. The "glorious" future is that eventually photography has an amazing market, with everyone truly loving the good pictures taken. But at the moment that's not happening. Wouldn't the first step be getting those pictures into physical spaces and showing them.

stcstc

you mis understood me again

for example if you work in mcdonalds, would you work for free

actually a lot of ameteur photographers DO sell their work, I print it for them!!

as for the mona lisa, it could be any piece of art, the material costs are nothing to do with the values


look at the thread on here about the gursky that sold for 4.3 million


I just feel asking photographers, pro or ameteur to give you their pictures for the cost of a print DOES devalue their artwork.

people share their images online all the time, and if people are happy to share them as prints then cool. but to value them as the cost of a print i personally feel isnt right

I have bought quite a few photographers images, some i have paid good ammounts of money for , the most recent i paid over 200 for and spent as much again on framing it. because i value the image

melekalikimaka

stcstc wrote: »

I just feel asking photographers, pro or ameteur to give you their pictures for the cost of a print DOES devalue their artwork.

I think this is crux of it

stcstc

wohoo someone grasps what i was saying

thankyou

sineadw

But maybe not all members here feel the same way, which I think is what the OP is trying to say..

stcstc

doesnt seem to be the case any time any one does come asking for images for free to use on anything, they get jumped on from a big height!!!

sineadw

But this is coming from within the community, more as a variant on the print exchange I think, which is very different IMHO.

Anyway, OP, why don't you just ask people when you see an image you like? As I said, I've done it before and have a few of my favourite prints from it If you were thinking of setting something up, a print exchange programme might be deemed fairer than what you're proposing, and more in line with the spirit of the community. Good luck either way..

ThOnda

Well, look around people you know or see here, look what they are doing, how they are doing and if there is any chance of them getting better, more famous and their prints will increase their price with time.
If you are looking for pure investment. If you are looking for any pictures, look, contact, ask, buy.
Most of good photographers have on-line shop or agency selling their work.
You should also keep an eye on various charity auctions. Just be aware what is happening in photography (art) area.

EyeBlinks

I buy prints too. I pay for them. Some are undervalued by the seller, thats ok by me, others I pay more for. I value my own work, so I also value others.

However if you get people to sell at cost or swap at cost, well done, you're on a winner.

Just this morning I received an absolute bargain imo. A top print from an Irish masters student, who is getting noticed in the photographic world. 60 Euro for a limited edition archivel print A3 size. I bought it cause I love the photo and have other work from the artist. It will probably be worth much more in the future, though not why I bought it.

I think in general photograpahic art is both accessible and reasonably cheap. I don't expect that to remain so though, so get in while you can. Getting someone before they are well known can be well worth while.

dinneenp

After reading this and thinknig about quality difference I'm going to do an experiment and get the same photo printed A4 size and 6" by 4" by a cheap online company and also high quality prints and see how noticable the difference is.
(and also check in 5 years)

I've heard a few people say it's a massive difference...

dinneenp

PM sent to OP with an offer.

I'm amateur, do have a photography website but have sold very little/virtually nothing through it and I don't expect to either.

Brief summary of PM (just in case anyone's curious): I'm offering the OP to browse through my site and reply if he'd like any photos, size, quality etc and then I'll come up with a final cost. Cost price & a very small profit margin. (Offer open to anyone else too...)


I'd be happy to know that someone likes my photos enough to want some of them and (as I don't sell many/any) pay me a token amount for them. Who knows; someone else might see my photos that he has and buy one (at 'standard' price) down the line. Or I might get some extra traffic and a few comments on photos on my site- always nice.

For me "it's not about the money" (as Jessie J sings) and I'm all about spreading happiness in these recessionary, dark times we live in.

Buceph

ThOnda wrote: »

Most of good photographers have on-line shop or agency selling their work.

Seriously? Good photographers? Do you mean a photographer who can take a good image nine times out of ten, four times out of ten, three times out of fifty? How about ok photographers who took a good shot once? Or bad photographers who took one amazing shot, decided to share it and will never be a "name" or collectors piece? (Is that "vernacular" photography? (I don't think it is, but I thought photography was something one does, rather than people do for others?))

EyeBlinks wrote: »

I buy prints too. I pay for them. Some are undervalued by the seller, thats ok by me, others I pay more for. I value my own work[my emphasis added], so I also value others.

I don't think of photography as "work." Like I said repeatedly: I don't want those peoples' photographs who do see it as "work." I wouldn't presume to think I am a "worker" nor would I presume to think anyone else would sully themselves with "profit." I thought it might be nice for people to say, "I'd like that photo!" From someone in an amatuer photography board who could give that image with all the joy and love and lack of care for greed.

However if you get people to sell at cost or swap at cost, well done, you're on a winner.

Just this morning I received an absolute bargain imo. A top print from an Irish masters student, who is getting noticed in the photographic world. 60 Euro for a limited edition archivel print A3 size. I bought it cause I love the photo and have other work from the artist. It will probably be worth much more in the future, though not why I bought it.

I think in general photograpahic art is both accessible and reasonably cheap. I don't expect that to remain so though, so get in while you can. Getting someone before they are well known can be well worth while.

I don't think photographic art is accessible (I don't know if it's cheap or not though: I certainly can't afford it.) If photography was accessible then every chancer I meet on the street would have a favourite photographer/artist. They'd all be collecting them, they'd all be showing them, they'd all be rotating their hangings on the wall. That's what accessible means to me. That everyone who would like to indulge can. Not that someone like you can get a "bargain!" But that people can appreciate the amazing work that people have been showing in the Random Photo Thread every day for the past few years.

dinneenp wrote: »

PM sent to OP with an offer.

I'm amateur, do have a photography website but have sold very little/virtually nothing through it and I don't expect to either.

Brief summary of PM (just in case anyone's curious): I'm offering the OP to browse through my site and reply if he'd like any photos, size, quality etc and then I'll come up with a final cost. Cost price & a very small profit margin. (Offer open to anyone else too...)


I'd be happy to know that someone likes my photos enough to want some of them and (as I don't sell many/any) pay me a token amount for them. Who knows; someone else might see my photos that he has and buy one (at 'standard' price) down the line. Or I might get some extra traffic and a few comments on photos on my site- always nice.

For me "it's not about the money" (as Jessie J sings) and I'm all about spreading happiness in these recessionary, dark times we live in.

Hey DineenP! Thanks for your message. I responded to you, and I was very angry when I did. I thought you were slightly mocking me, and slightly indulging me.

I don't have a credit card for the moment, I'm hoping to get a Visa Debit card once Bank of Ireland start offering them by the end of January/start of February.

You offered to let me take my pick from your website. So far there's two I've seen on your site I'd like to have. The one of Shandon you took from Paul St., just by the BOI Bank looking down that small avenue (next to TK Maxx,) with amber hued light and the phone/electricty line crossing the Shandon Tower. And almost to be missed, the young couple holding hands at the bottom of the picture. At first I was taken that it was the same picture I have taken many times (but you have better light) but that young couple you posed make it a quite beautiful image, and the almost funeral cortege you have going down by the car park. And the other one, from your "Buy Prints" page, where it looks like the church up by St. Lukes stacked up multiple times (The Honan Chaple maybe? I'm not too sure, but it looks nice and grimy and compact and square and impactful.) It's the one on that page, second row, third from the left. You're charging €6.50 from that print site you have linked up (I presume it's a printing site, it looks fierce fancy.) How much for a roughly 6*4, or 7*5 or 6*6 that you printed yourself, and that you posted to me from your house? (postal damage makes them worth far more. )

I suppose you've called me on my artistic and photographic concerns. I'd really like to be in on the ground floor of a really good photographer. Someone who makes the headlines. If I could help him making the headlines by being the first buyer, then all the better. If I could be the only person who ever "bought" an image from that person, and that person could know that I appreciate their image, then that would mean even more to me. That I could appreciate the one image I thought was good, and would be happy to have in a folder that I could show to my friends and say, "Wait a fupping moment, look at this picture, it's fcuking awesome, then that's all I want." I just don't think that those awesome images are the preserve of people "making money" from their images. And a genuine non rhetoric question here, wouldn't you prefer photography to be viewed and loved, rather than collected and "bargain'ed"?*



(I'll talk about the Boards Photobook issue in my argument in the future, if people would like to talk to about it. I'd prefer not to distract from what I'm saying (if I'm still coherent at 6.30am.))

And DineenP: I'm sorry for getting angry at you in the PM. I thought it was a challenge in a "If you feel this way, then ****ing buy my stuff then!" way. I see now you're willing to offer your photography to everyone, so let me be the first person to take you up on that (once I get the BOI Visa Debit card.) Similarly, I'll try and post my B&W prints at some point (it would be a photo of a printed B&W image, I have no scanner, and even then I would hope my printing would add something to the image. And if anyone wants one of those pictures, I'd be happy to send you one. )

dinneenp

Hi,
When I mentioned a small profit/markup I'm literally talking about €1 or so just so I can technically say I sold a photo....

I meant look through my site, email
with ones you like and I'll get them
Printed and send them on.

The postage costs on my site are too high for Europe, I have to find a better solution. They post from USA. The great thing is you can add a 'buy print' to every photo automatically and they print and post the photos (so it's a 'total' solution).

Will send a PM to OP

Cheers
Pa

ThOnda

Buceph wrote: »

Seriously? Good photographers? ....

Yes, good photographers. Somebody, who's work is worth buying, from my personal point of view and aesthetics, from general acceptance of their work or just because they are really good. It has nothing to do with amount of captured images, but with the editing process (more selection, than processing at the first place).

Buceph

ThOnda wrote: »

Yes, good photographers. Somebody, who's work is worth buying, from my personal point of view and aesthetics, from general acceptance of their work or just because they are really good. It has nothing to do with amount of captured images, but with the editing process (more selection, than processing at the first place).

Yeah, whatever. You have different criteria for what you think makes a good photograph, or a good "photographer." Or you think that everyone's out to make money from photography rather than engaging in a fun hobby that sometimes allows for amazingly beautiful pieces (something if I was so lucky to have captured I would be delighted to share.) If you're not going to engage with what I say, then away with yourself. I won't be indulging you.

magicbastarder

you're getting very defensive and aggressive over a very minor issue. any interest i had in commenting (bar on this issue now) has evaporated, since you don't seem to react well to some comment.

i'm scratching my head here at how you managed to find so much of an issue with what thonda said that it angered you.

Effects

Buceph wrote: »

I don't think of photography as "work." Like I said repeatedly: I don't want those peoples' photographs who do see it as "work." I wouldn't presume to think I am a "worker" nor would I presume to think anyone else would sully themselves with "profit."

Just because you don't see it as work doesn't mean it isn't work.

Buceph

Effects wrote: »

Just because you don't see it as work doesn't mean it isn't work.

If saw a hobby as work, I would seriously reconsider that hobby. Like I've said over and over, I can't imagine that I'm the only person who sees photography as something fun and not for profit. I don't want people's images who do see it as work, not because there's anything wrong with that, but becuase that's not what I'm looking for. I couldn't afford their pieces (yet) and I wouldn't want to put them in a situation where they'd have to turn me down. However, there's nothing wrong with anything they do or how they conduct their business. I simply thought their might be amatuers who take photos purely for fun, who might get a buzz out of sharing their printed images. And I wouldn't want them to be out of pocket for an extra print.

People keep coming back to this "photography is work" thing. For some people, absolutely it is. And they can get as much enjoyment out of their profession as someone who does it as a hobby, especially with the difficulties in the photography industry. I do see a separated between them and people who might like to have their photos shared, or like DineenP who would get a buzz from a "small" sale.

And more than all that I think it could be good for photography in general.

AnCatDubh

I think its a great idea when taken in the innocence that it was/is proposed, and indeed has on previous occasions been suggested around these parts - but unfortunately it is unlikely to gain any traction i'd suggest as for many of the reasons that people are bringing forward.

I think i can reasonably contribute to the cheap print v professional print discussion.

I have framed some cheap snaps printed with Harvey Norman for my mothers wall - of the grandchildren kinda stuff. I also have a 360dpi produced print - a large format yoke (sorry Steve) of a print which was published in the media. Both hang in the same place - a conservatory, glass roof, glass walls. Neither protected by UV glass or anything like that. But if i recall correctly Steve coated the print he did for me with something or other as it wasn't going to be framed and would withstand a clean with a damp cloth.

Both the cheap prints and the 360dpi production have been hanging for probably 3 (maybe 4 years) at this stage. The cheap prints from harvey norman are faded maybe about 50-60% (at a guess) of what they originally were. On the other hand, the 360dpi print is practically as good as the day it was produced.

To be fair its not an exact comparison, but I think it reasonable for me based on my personal experience, to conclude that there is a significant difference between the cheap over the counter print while you wait kinda stuff and the print which is professionally done - this, when putting them both on display.

Now, that said, the above is an extreme example. Blasting printed matter with light 10 - 16 hours a day for years largely unprotected is going to yield faded results.

All that said, If you plan on keeping a photographic collection in albums, or storage, boxed, or whatever and take them out to review and enjoy and then putting them back away for more storage - then cheap prints will last for donkeys years. I also have lots of these and they are fine for their purpose. Horses for courses I'm thinking.

stcstc

i think you misunderstand the term work when being used in ths thread


a bunch of your photos, would be a body of work, a single photo would be a piece of your work.

its not about a job, paid or un paid, its a term to describe a piece of your art

Buceph

stcstc wrote: »

its the same as valuing your own time, would you work for free?

stcstc wrote: »

i am talking about your job

Effects wrote: »

Just because you don't see it as work doesn't mean it isn't work.

My point isn't that it would take from your work... If you're struggling, then at the very least I can say I've heard that you're excellent at what you do. Boards.ie continuously reccomends you. And I would really hate for you to go under. I just think that even if a print only last five years, from a Sam McCauley's print or something it's better to have someone have a print in their hand, and for them to buy a better print from you 20 years down the line. I would think that if people are buying home prints, then they can buy resin prints, and if they can buy resin prints they can buy fibre prints, and if they can buy that they can pay for something that should adorn their wall for the next 100 years, when they invest in a piece for their children.

In the meantime, shouldn't we be concentrating on getting photos into "punters" hands?

When I started thinking about this photo collecting business, I dreamed of going to farmer's markets. I dreamed of making a living showing folders of books to kids (especially young girls,) who would love to buy beautiful images of the Irish countryside, and of horses and fairies. And maybe old men can sit down and have a coffee, in the comfy chairs and with the coffee I give them, and they can browse through the folders of photos I give to them. And they can find a photo they love, and they can invest in. You may be concerned with ensuring photos last, but those photos can be replaced. It's not an investment. It's a momentary "love." And when they fade, they can be replaced, by more photos! More pictures, because photography is growing. We have compact cameras, and we have iPhones and Smartphones. And we have Holgas, webcams and videocameras. These photos may be lost, but people can enjoy them for what they are, something to hold dear while it lasts.

And separately to this everyday photo, separate to what we take our pictures of, and of course separate to what you print is what Eyeblinks gets up to. S/He can can preseve the people trained in what they do (and I don't think education is beyond anyone, nor is it beyond photography.) S/he can preserve the talented "maestros" and their "virtuosos." I'd just like to recognise the kind of photography that shows up once in a blue moon (or three times a week if you're in the random photo thread.)

EyeBlinks wrote: »

I buy prints too. I pay for them. Some are undervalued by the seller, thats ok by me, others I pay more for. I value my own work, so I also value others.

However if you get people to sell at cost or swap at cost, well done, you're on a winner.

Just this morning I received an absolute bargain imo. A top print from an Irish masters student, who is getting noticed in the photographic world. 60 Euro for a limited edition archivel print A3 size. I bought it cause I love the photo and have other work from the artist. It will probably be worth much more in the future, though not why I bought it.

That's kind of my point, and excuse me if I don't speak in precise terms when it comes to dealing with artistic sellers or buyers. "I bought it cause I love the photo" would be the exact same reason I would buy loads of photos in the random photo thread. I don't care if they're an art student: maybe they mean more in the artistic community. Maybe in that community they have all the requisite emotion, wherewithal, intelligence, foresight, etc. My point, is separate to that, without the education, training, "intelligence" or even "talent" that people make great images. And I'd like to make those images a part of my collection. I'd like to be able to separate "artistic design" from artistic endeavour. Art shouldn't be what people intend it to be, but it should be raw emotion, enthusiasm, or from the people.

I brought out my friends last weekend. I gave every one of them a camera: one had a film SLR, one had D-SLR, one had a Holga, and I had a disposable B&W film camera. What if one of us captures a "forever" moment? What if we're "shown" tomorrow, a picture that shows up in 3D movies of the future or 2100ad's history documentaries where they show "vernacular" photos of "our" time: of the holgas, the dslrs or when film died?

That's a lot of talk about me and my friends. But there are millions of photos, and some of them have to be good enough to be considered in the future... I'd just like to think that I appreciated them in my time. I'd just like to think that when those pictures were shown to me, I had the opportunity and took the opportunity to snatch those pictures into my arms. Just because, "I bought it cause I love the photo."

Shouldn't we buy these picutres because we love those photos?

And I think the internet space has to mature to the next level beyond purely digital "thanks." A point where we can trade and "communitise" people's amazing pictures that they post every day in the random photo thread.

sineadw

Buceph wrote: »

dreamed of making a living showing folders of books to kids (especially young girls,) who would love to buy beautiful images of the Irish countryside, and of horses and fairies.

Especially young girls?? What?!?

Anouilh

magicbastarder wrote: »

you're getting very defensive and aggressive over a very minor issue. any interest i had in commenting (bar on this issue now) has evaporated, since you don't seem to react well to some comment.

i'm scratching my head here at how you managed to find so much of an issue with what thonda said that it angered you.

Perhaps if arguments were less frequent here, more people would enjoy posting? And this is not back seat modding or putting my oar in.

And absolutely off topic, there's a marvelous "Arena" programme on BBC 4 TV on Dickens as represented in the history of cinema.

dinneenp

Wooo, this has gone from a simple 'cheap photo' request to a big 'pub' debate....

Anyway OP is interested in 2 photos of minel; I've offered home printing, packing and postage for €4. I'm an amateur, not making money from it. As OP said I'm happy for someone to want some photos of mine.

Buceph

Been avoiding this thread, because it was pissing me off, so I just checked in on this now. But I'll answer this...

sineadw wrote: »

Especially young girls?? What?!?

Young girls are the typical, "sticker book" collectors. All my female cousin and my little sister went through a phase of collecting stickers of ponies, fairies and princesses. Boys generally do the football player thing, but that has more to do with the sport than the images themselves. This was partly going on another form of cheap art (where artists make small cards of their art) and there's a fair amount of children involved with it, swapping and creating their own cards of whatever they think of. I think if you combine the cheapness and collectibility you end up with something that kids (especially young girls) get interested in and some of them go onto get into photography seriously.

I'm not a fan of marketing to kids, but I think it's acceptable if present it in a proper cultural context of art, society and community, rather than simple profit making.

artyeva

see, your first post i thought was coming from someone who wanted to build up a personal collection of photographic prints, and not pay a lot for them.

your post above, opaque and unclear and misguided as it may be, bears no relation to that.

and by the by, if you think that anecdotal evidence of a few of your female relatives being into princesses, fairies and ponies means that by showing young girls photos, they will in some way 'get into photography seriously' then... well... i'll just leave that there... but maybe sugest that your gender stereotyping might need some attention. if that's not what you meant, then i suggest you restructure your intentions and maybe word it better - cause that's what i got from it

humberklog

Buceph wrote: »

Young girls are the typical, "sticker book" collectors. All my female cousin and my little sister went through a phase of collecting stickers of ponies, fairies and princesses.

May I suggest getting a girlfriend for a few years? A normal one.

thefizz

If you want to obtain prints form a master printer at an affordable price, check out Les McLean's example prints on this page: http://www.lesmcleanphotography.com/sales.php

Don't know why I didn't think of this sooner :rolleyes:

I purchased two of his prints a few years ago for my home and they have continued to be a source of inspiration.

Peter

monosnaps

Buceph, going back to your original post and observing your frustration with how the thread has developed if you send me a PM with your details I will send you a nice Silver fibre based photographic print for your collection which hopefully you will like.

EyeBlinks

Big selection of a variety of great stuff going to auction in Trim next Saturday. Email bids accepted.

No reason to be without some great photographic art in the house:D

Trimprintauction